{"id":297308,"date":"2023-09-01T06:46:23","date_gmt":"2023-09-01T11:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=297308"},"modified":"2023-08-30T17:31:30","modified_gmt":"2023-08-30T22:31:30","slug":"court-rejects-abortion-chain-lawsuit-fda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rejects-abortion-chain-lawsuit-fda\/","title":{"rendered":"Court rejects abortion chain’s unusual request in lawsuit against the FDA"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A federal court has denied<\/a> a request by Whole Woman’s Health Alliance (WWHA) for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit<\/a> the abortion chain filed against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The suit asked the District Court for the Western District of Virginia to order the FDA to remove the abortion pill from under its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) safety requirements due to \u201cchaos surrounding mifepristone.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lawsuit<\/a> asked the court to enjoin the government agency from \u201caltering the availability of mifepristone under the January 2023 REMS, to ensure some modicum of certainty and continued patient access to a safe, effective medication that has been repeatedly targeted simply because of its association with abortion.\u201d In addition, the lawsuit petitioned the Court to \u201c[e]njoin Defendants\u2026 from taking any action under the REMS against any providers in Virginia, Montana, or Kansas.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Whole Woman\u2019s Health Alliance (WWHA) v FDA mifepristone abortion pill lawsuit<\/p><\/div>\n

The abortion pill mifepristone was approved<\/a> by the FDA in 2000 in a regimen along with a second drug, misoprostol. In 2011, the FDA made the decision to place mifepristone under its REMS safety system<\/a>, but not before\u00a0multiple women had died<\/a> in association with use of the abortion pill regimen.<\/p>\n

Background Cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

This lawsuit comes on the heels of additional abortion pill lawsuits challenging the drug’s approval or requesting protections for its continued dispensing nationwide, including a case<\/a> out of West Virginia which was filed by GenBioPro, the generic maker of the abortion pill.<\/p>\n

In that case (GenBioPro, Inc. v. Mark Sorsaia<\/a>), a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Chambers partially dismissed<\/a> GenBioPro\u2019s challenge to West Virginia’s Unborn Child Protection Act and limitations the state passed regarding the dispensing of the drug.<\/p>\n

In his decision, Judge Chambers rejected most of GenBioPro\u2019s arguments, except for the “law ensuring women see a physician in person before receiving chemical abortion drugs,” according to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) which also wrote that “West Virginia had amended its law to prohibit telehealth practitioners from \u2018prescribing or dispensing an abortifacient,\u2019 so now the lawsuit will proceed only as it regards that prohibition.\u201d<\/p>\n